User talk:67.135.49.177

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 I am not a sockpuppet 2 Blocked 3 Yeah, I "disrupted" the POV warriors 4 Removal of material from my userpage 4.1 Removal of comments, warnings 4.2 Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments 4.3 ESAD 5 Admin FeloniousMonk 6 Still not a sockpuppet 6.1 WP:SOCK 7 Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption 8 Unblock request 9 Editprotected request

[edit] I am not a sockpuppet

I fully admit that I am Jinxmchue. I am no longer logging in because I am no longer editing WP regularly (and I have altered my password and deleted my email address). I am not doing so and have NEVER done so to avoid any policies or blocks, or to disassociate my edits from my username. Since I am not logged in, WP associates my IP address with my edits. My IP address is not static and the last three digits change from time to time. I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT. If they change, they change. In the future, when I notice that the IP has changed, I will post a note about my identity on the new IP user page. ==

IPs that I have edited under over the past few months (with no intention of sockpuppeting):

User_talk:67.135.49.29

User_talk:67.135.49.147

User_talk:67.135.49.158

User_talk:67.135.49.177

[edit] Blocked

For consistent disruption. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, I "disrupted" the POV warriors

My edits weren't "disruptive." They were in good faith and perfectly in line with the Wikipedia POLICY of verifiability. You POV warriors can't accept or admit that, however, and simply gang up on someone who threatens your strangle-hold on articles. And surprise, surprise, other people are noticing this, too:

Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain

And undoubtedly, this was involved, too:

Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia

Is it any wonder that no educator worth anything will accept Wikipedia as a source on things like term papers? The whole lie of "there really is no cabal" is starting to come to light. "A cabal works in secret and avoids claiming responsibility." No shit, Sherlock. Sure sounds to me like administrators have been working in secret to stifle editors that don't agree with their POV agenda. What a frickin' joke! The "conspiracy theory" has been proven and Wikipedia stands embarrassed, guilty and discredited.

Why would any educator accept any encylopedia as a source on term papers? I'd be worried if they did. If that's what you wanted Wikipedia to be the project's better off without you. Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is FUBAR and I, for one, will not miss it. 67.135.49.177 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of material from my userpage

[edit] Removal of comments, warnings

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments

If an editor removes a comment from their talk page, whether the comment is legitimate or not, do not add the comment back again. Respect their wishes. It's counter-productive to force the issue.

Note that users who repeatedly restore comments to a user's talk page more than three times in a 24 hour period may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule.

[edit] ESAD

[edit] Admin FeloniousMonk

FM has been violating WP:AGF and making baseless accusations against me. This started when he "discovered" that I had not been logging in to my user account to edit. (The story behind that is a long one, but to be brief, I am no longer regularly editing and have retired my username.) In not logging in, my IP address was used and, like many IP addresses, it is not static - the last three digits change from time to time - something completely out of my control. FM immediately started accusing me of sockpuppeting, ignoring AGF (which is strongly encouraged for admins here and for handling possible sockpuppets here). I have never denied I was still editing and never hid my identity for any reason. I readily admitted that I was Jinxmchue. This information, however, did not stop FM from continuing to make his accusation and claiming I was doing it do disrupt, avoid blocks, and to disassociate my edits with my username. I asked him to provide proof of his accusations, but he simply ignored my request and described it as "trolling." Of course, his sockpuppeting accusations were never officially made on WP:SSP (and it's not in the November archive, either), likely due to him knowing that the accusation lacked merit. Evidence for FM's behavior can be seen in the following links:

• [1] - smearing me (note the Wikilawyering)

• [2] - smearing both me and Crockspot (and ignoring the edit-warring of others)

• [3] - more smearing

• [4] - I've never denied my identity

• [5] - note that the page is protected despite no official report on WP:SSP

Furthermore, when admin Guettarda wrongly re-blocked me for supposedly violating an edit block (see here), I requested a block removal. FM (along with Guettarda) has been intimately involved in the issues involving editing an article which led to my initial block. Despite this gross conflict of interest, FM handled the block removal request (denying it, of course). Admins with the same agendas and POV working together like this to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed is simply astounding and should not be allowed. A neutral admin should have handled the block removal request.

FM's hostile attitude towards me is unacceptable (and I admit my hostile reactions towards his behavior were also unacceptable, but I don't have admin powers to abuse).

[edit] Still not a sockpuppet

[edit] WP:SOCK

"A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden."

I am not using accounts deceptively and I did not circumvent any policies.

"Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternate accounts."

I have not created any alternate accounts. I ceased logging in to my regular username because I am no longer editing regularly. That the last three numbers of my IP address change is something that is completely out of my hands.

"using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted."

I am not avoiding scrutiny, misleading anyone, making disruptive edits (unless, of course, you count having an opinion that doesn't agree with your POV agenda as "being disruptive"), or artificially stirring up controversy.

"If someone uses alternate accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternate account identification)."

I did this. Imagine that...

[edit] Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption

* persistent vandalism;

Nope.

* persistent gross incivility;

I have not been incivil with my edits (the same cannot be said for certain editors and admins, however). And as outlined above, removing material from my userpage is not automatically assumed to be incivil.

* persistent harassment;

Again, I have done no such thing (and again, the same cannot be said for certain editors and admins).

* persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy;

Nope.

* persistent spamming;

Nope.

* edit warring or revert warring;

The only "edit warring" I did was in defending good faith edits that were in line with Wikipedia policies. I laid out my reasons for my edits, but they were simply mindlessly reverted by the true POV edit warriors with such solid reasons such as, "Yeah it is."

* breaching the sock puppetry policy;

As outlined above, I have not done this at all.

* persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive.

[edit] Unblock request

[edit] Editprotected request

{{editprotected}} Please remove the {{IPsock}} template from the userpage. Per the Meta privacy policy and Meta checkuser policy we don't disclose users' IP addresses without their consent. The reversions of the userpage show that the user does not wish to have their IP revealed in this fashion. The admin placing the template and protecting the userpage should take their concerns to WP:RFCU or a dispute resolution forum. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)}}

It appears that the user himself disclosed the addresses, in this case. Seems difficult to have it both ways, in both "this is not a sockpuppet" and "this is me, please remove the tag" -- it seems pretty clear that this is the same person (not sure if you're disputing that). It's not clear to me, however, whether there was a violation of WP:SOCK; has any particular policy been violated? Not a question to you in particular, but in general. Seems the {{editprotected}} and {{unblock}} requests go together. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm at this IP address now. It changed over the weekend while I was out of town and far away from my computer. I have no control over the IP changes and am not using them to violate any policies. I used to edit under the handle "Jinxmchue," but I have retired that username and am not regularly editing Wikipedia anymore. I still use Wikipedia to look up things and sometimes make good faith edits when I see they are needed. All the accusations that led up to the block I am currently under have never been backed up with facts. Indeed, it is a small faction of Wiki admins and editors who have made these accusations, issued the blocks and backed each other up when the blocks were challenged (i.e. denying unblock requests made against their friends). These Wiki members do not like their POV agenda to certain articles (mainly those about evolution, Creationism, intelligent design, and related articles) disrupted. They ignore Wiki policies, do not assume good faith, shut down any attempt to build a new consensus, and are highly hostile, disruptive, volatile and prone to edit-warring (which they conveniently subvert by making sure two or more of them back up the same edits or reverts). 67.135.49.211 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. Especially in view of the above edit, the {{IPsock}} template appears to be used here according to its intended purpose. Until such time as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:IPsock decides that the template itself should be deleted, I find no grounds for its removal from this user page. Sandstein (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it myself (yet), but I am reinstating the request so someone else can have a look. Its "intended purpose" is for users who are violating the WP:SOCK policy; and no such violation is in evidence here. A less inflammatory note can be used for the purpose of merely identifying a connection between accounts when there is no actual sockpuppetry. Since the user does readily disclose his own IP addresses, it's not a matter of the privacy policy, but the use of the template in this manner may constitute a personal attack. —Random832 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since User:67.135.49.211 uses {{alternateuser}}, and since Jinxmchue has (repeatedly) asserted that he scrambled his own password and is editing within this range of IP addresses, I've changed the tag on the user page to {{alternateuser}} for consistency. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems some people are more interested in POV slurs than in reality and consistency. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]